Remember: Our Trustee's Holiday Season Break begins at close of business on: December 15, 2017!Which means he will not be available from then until: January 15, 2018; during which time there will be no conference calls and no support calls to our Trustee. However, the Fulfillment Office will only be closed from: December 22, 2017, until: January 8, 2018.

So, make sure that you take care of any of your end of year needs now, before our offices close.

Use this Forum to contact Team Law;use this link for more: contact information.We hope this information is helpful to you.Tell everybody about Team Law!

After reading this announcement, you may remove it by clicking the “X” in the upper right corner of the announcement's green background.

We hope you have been enjoying our Open Forum. We also hope it is answering questions you may have had and giving you good reasons to get involved with your support of Team Law. We hope you find Team Law a place where the mysticism around topics rarely taught to the general public are unraveled, making them easy to understand. We appreciate your comments and invite you to tell everyone about Team Law.

It is virtually impossible to live in this “modern world” and not interact with others through contracts. It is also impossible to follow the teachings provided in scripture without participating in contracts for they offer man the opportunity to progress in accord with man’s covenants with our Creator.

Where the principle elements of contracts, trusts and the concept of the corporation sole bring light to almost any relationship, we present them here together to help you better understand the various relationships with which you may be involved. To better understand all such matters, we first provide you with:

Team Law's: Standard for Review

Rule 1: To understand any relationship you must:

First understand who the parties are (from their origin);

Always know yourself first (start at Genesis 1:26–28);

Discover the true nature of all other parties second;

Then you must understand the historical and environmental nature of the relationship; and,

Only then can you understand how applicable laws may effect the relationship; thus, it’s time to thoroughly study such laws.

(To have any hope of understanding any particular situation in any relationship you must have first applied all three parts of Rule 1, only then do the actual terms of the relationship begin to have meaning and bearing on the relationship; thus, the details of any given situation in question can have no real meaning until Rule 1 is applied.)

Rule 2: Review the details in question (in the relationship) only after you have completed the review required by Rule 1, then review the actual terms of the relationship and the details in question in accord with what you learned from applying Rule 1.

The biggest problem with this is most people do not address themselves first. When you review the parties in any relationship with which you are personally involved, you must review your own personal nature first; including, whatever separate capacity in which you serve (respective to the relationship). The next biggest problem is people fail to do their own firsthand research from the source; instead, they rely on third party sources (like those found by surfing the internet). You must know your own nature and the capacity in which you serve any relationship and you must do your own research from the actual facts and history of the relationship. If these necessities alone were followed, our nation’s Constitution would not be hanging by a thread and the confusion found in the Patriot, Law, Freedom and Tax movements would be resolved.(Team Law beneficiaries should review this example: What is my relationship?)

Therefore, we set this standard as the Standard for Review of any situation involving a relationship between parties. Team Law uses this standard for review in every review we do. It is key reason we rarely get anything wrong in our reviews; the other reasons are we always go to the source and verify facts rather than ever trusting any third party information; and, we stick to the law and historical facts.

Thus, this Standard may wisely be used as an elemental Key to living and securing permanent Liberty in your natural capacity as you serve in any other capacity in anything you may do throughout your life. It is certainly how our Admin choses to live.

Having set that standard for review let’s now move on to that special kind of relationship at the center of this topic — contracts.

ContractsA contract, as we will consider the subject here, is defined as:

Black's Law Dictionary, 7th edition wrote:1. An agreement between two or more parties creating obligations that are enforceable or otherwise recognizable at law.

Every contract, whether written or merely implied, must have all of the following elements:

a giver;

a receiver;

valuable consideration over time; and,

acceptance.

Some people get a bit confused here in the matter of acceptance; they are of the impression that acceptance requires a signature and they think a signature must be performed in pen and ink. The courts accept signatures on paper as evidence of the intent to accept (agree to) the terms of a contract; the courts recognize such evidence indicates the signer’s intent to agree, which intent is proven by the signer’s signature act; that is the signer placed the pen on the paper and purposefully moved it in order to leave the ink trail as evidence of the signer’s agreement. The proof of agreement is the signature act not the trail of ink. The trail of ink is merely evidence of the signature act. Therefore, when a person performs an act that evidences agreement with, or compliance to, the terms of a contract, written or not, the act itself is a signature act that proves the agreement and so the contract. It should go without saying that written contracts make proving the terms of the relationship far easier and remove questions as to the terms of the agreement. A lawful contract cannot compel the impossible. A lawful contract cannot compel an unlawful act.

So, when reviewing a relationship, to verify its contractual nature, ask yourself if those elements (numbered above) are included in the relationship in question; if they are then the relationship is contractual, whether or not a written contract was made.

The particular type of contract we are reviewing in this topic is — the Trust.

TrustsSimply stated, a trust is defined as:

Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. On 23 June 2005 Merriam-Webster wrote:A property interest held by one person for the benefit of another.

To say the same thing with a bit more definitive complexity:

Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Edition wrote:The right, enforceable solely in equity, to the beneficial enjoyment of property to which another person holds the legal title; a property interest held by one person (the trustee) at the request of another (the settlor) for the benefit of a third party (the beneficiary). •For a trust to be valid, it must involve a specific property, reflect the settlor’s intent, and be created for a lawful purpose. … • A trust arises as a result of a manifestation of an intention to create it.

The bottom line: having reviewed the results of many court cases regarding the creation of trusts we found that the creation of a trust can best be reduced to the following statement:

A Trust is created:

Anytime any party (for a lawful purpose) gives any other party something to hold that does not belong to that other party.

Respectively, every trust, whether written in a formal Indenture or not, contains the following five basic elements:

a Creator (settlor);

a Trustee;

a Beneficiary; and,

the Corpus or body of the trust — a specific property, some thing of value placed in trust with the Trustee by the Creator.

The relationship was intentionally created for a lawful purpose.

Now let’s take a look a the trust relationship and see if it qualifies as a contract.To do this, ask yourself:

“Does it have a Giver?”

Yes, the Giver is the trust’s Creator.

“Does it have a Receiver?”

Yes, the Receiver is the trust itself.

“Does it have a valuable consideration over time?”

Yes, the trust’s Corpus (res) is something of value that the Trust has agreed to so hold in trust until such time as it must be delivered to the trust’s Beneficiary or it is otherwise consumed or disbursed.

“Does it have Acceptance?”

Yes, The Giver offered the res and the Trustee (acting for the trust) accepted it in trust; therefore, it has acceptance.

Now, notice that as you reviewed the relationship and asked yourself if these elements of a contract were included in trusts—they all were. Therefore, because trusts contain all of the elements necessary to contracts, whether the agreement was written or generated in construct (without a written agreement), by definition, trusts are contractually bound agreements regardless of any formal written agreement (Trust Indenture). Respectively; the acts of someone (the Creator) intentionally giving a specific thing (property) to another person (the trust or its trustee) to hold for someone else (the Beneficiary) with acceptance, constitutes signature acts proving the contractual relationship and verifying the formality of the trust's contractual agreement.

Now notice: As with any other person the capacity to make decisions and physically perform acts requires both consciousness and physical capacity; however, contracts do not possess such actual qualities; therefore, in order to create the capacity for such qualities in a contract specific offices are created/described within the terms of the contract. In a trust indenture (contract) the office so created by contract is the Trustee. Therefore within the terms of every trust’s contractual agreement (with or without a written Indenture), of necessity, there must be a defined a “Trustee capacity”; which is the Office within the Trust through which all action is taken. This is where the “corporation sole” comes in.

The Corporation SoleThe corporation sole is most simply defined as: “Consciousness created in contract.” It is the basis of the legal concept of corporate immunity. Contrary to marketing materials predatory marketers use bilk people out of their hard earned resources, the corporation sole is not (and cannot be) a separate entity in and of itself; rather, it is the nature of certain offices, entities and/or capacities, like: corporate (and political) presidents, CEOs, managers, governors, ministers and trustees.

To understand what the corporation sole nature is, one must understand what ‘consciousness created in contract’ is. Respectively, you will notice that the decision making ability necessarily included in any office (or official capacity) in any organization requires both the decision making capacity and the physical ability to execute such decisions, once made; also, notice that though a written document (like a Trust Indenture) can create the office of Trustee (that is, the capacity for such consciousness and physicality), it cannot create the actual consciousness or physical capacity necessary to exercise the contractually created will of the organization. Such actual consciousness and physical capacity must be borrowed from someone that has actual consciousness and the physical capacity to exercise the same. In law, such a contractually created capacity for consciousness is called —a corporation sole. Therefore, the Trust’s contract creates the Trust’s capacity for consciousness, which capacity officially resides in the office of the Trustee and that office (or capacity) exists in the nature of 'a corporation sole'; as do the offices of: CEOs, presidents, managers, governors, judges, mayors and any other capacity that fits the definition of a “consciousness created in contract.”

The 'corporation sole' is like the "soul" of the thing; in that it brings actual life to the contractually created entity.

By its very nature, a corporation sole is an extra jurisdictional capacity; that means the corporation sole is the cause of corporate immunity; because, it is unassailable in any jurisdiction. This is because the corporation sole cannot act for itself; rather, it acts only as the entity (the person) for whom the contractual consciousness was created. In other words, so long as the party lending consciousness and physical capacity to the corporation sole functions within the terms of the agreement that created the corporation sole (the office), the lender is immune from prosecution for the lawful acts of the entity to which the corporation sole provides consciousness and physical capacity. (Please take note of the P.S. below!)

Thus, because the capacity or office of Trustee was created so that the Trust can function, when the Trustee acts [in accord with its Indenture (contract)] it is the Trust that is acting and not the person lending consciousness and physical capacity to that office. In other words, the person that lends consciousness and physical capacity to the office is not the Office/Trustee; they simply lend the Trust actual consciousness and physical capacity so that the same can be used in the office of its Trustee; without which, the Trust could not actually do what it was contracted to do. Therefore, again, whenever the Trustee acts, it is the Trust that is acting and not the man who so lends the Trust actual consciousness and physical capacity.

If you review your relationships with this information in mind, you should understand them better. Though a further review of this topic, as it relates to the relationship most people have with Corp. U.S., would better provide a level of understanding that would allow people to control Corp. U.S. and would be of great help in restoring our nation that level of support would require Team Law beneficiary support; wherefore, we created that review in the Team Law Beneficiary Forum at this link: Social Security Administration created Trusts.

For those of you that do not have access to that forum, we hope this information is helpful to you as is.

Attention Team Law beneficiaries:If you’re interested, when you finish reading this post go to the Team Law Beneficiary Forum and read the article called, Social Security Administration created Trusts, where we will continue with this review by reviewing the relationship that stands as the nexus with virtually all connections most people today have with commerce, industry and/or government.

P.S. People should beware of anyone (agent provocateurs, predatory marketers, etc.) alleging they can create an entity called a “Corporation Sole” that separately operates directly in commerce or business relations. Such marketers allege such creations are immune from taxes or other obligations that would otherwise attach to people, trusts, corporation and partnerships. Such allegations are false! This misleading idea comes from the fact that there are statutes and case law recognizing the absolute immune nature of the corporation sole capacity (consciousness created in the contract of another entity) and the fact that anyone can create such a capacity; this fact becomes misleading when the marketer provides the fuzzy logic that anyone should be able to generate a corporation sole and use it to act like a church and then enter commerce or business relations and remain immune. The problem with this concept is easily understood if we go back to the example of the Trust and notice, what the marketer alleges is they can create the corporation sole as a stand alone entity; thus, they allege they can remove the office from the trust and have it act of its own volition, without the Trust. What would happen if they did that: they would have either created:

a General Partnership between the entity they created and those that operated it, thus removing the corporation sole nature from the entity leaving only their empty allegation that it is one; or,

another trust (they call a corporation sole even though it is not), with no difference in immunity, liability, responsibility or operation from any other trust.

Thus, such entities are not what they seem to be, create confusion and any liability remains accountable. Wisdom says avoid such offerings like the plague, regardless of how good their promoters make them sound.For sound information regarding proper asset protection systems we would contact The Way of Kings™.

Last edited by Admin on Tuesday December 13th, 2005 12:17 pm MST, edited 5 times in total.

This is excellen and clear information. However, I just have one question so that I can correct my thinking from former information that may or may not be correct. I had always understood a valid contract to have SIX essential elements:

MrPisky:You may notice that the original article in this topical thread did not list the two presupposed conditions that are obviously elemental to any relationship that can be enforced in accord with law. Those elements are the relationship must be both:

Lawful; and,

Possible.

Respectively, both of those conditions were covered in the lead article of this topical thread.

Therefore, if we look at the list you provided and compare it to the one we provided, you will find:

Giver;

Reciever;

Valuable consideration over time; and,

Acceptance.

The list we provided was taken from various significant court cases that set that list as a standard. We have seen some lesser cases where the judges used terms similar to those that you listed. However, when we look at the two lists, we find that the only real distinction between them is that yours included the presupposed element of lawful even though it did not include the presupposed element of possible. Still, those are normally accepted as elemental limitations that are not necessary to list.

We believe that the standard listed as we provided it is more definitive because it expressly designated that the “Competent Parties” from your list must be at least one giver and one receiver. In the standard list, the “valuable consideration over time” includes the “meeting of the minds” as does your fourth point. Thus, we find it to be more clear for our purposes of briefly describing the basic elements necessary to every contract.

The bottom line: either list is sufficient to establish the same effect. Respectively, a complete list would also include the presupposed element of possibility.

We hope this information is helpful to you.Tell everybody about Team Law!

Everything we do in our lives is performed in this manner. Is the Steward not also bound by these same elements of contract through the Covenant?

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children." (Hosea 4:6)